Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 351, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Burke, James F ^a,b   Sussman, Jeremy B ^b,c   Kent, David M ^d   Hayward, Rodney A ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b VA CENTER FOR CLINICAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 84949058182     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h5651     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW, et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 2012;344:e1553.
2. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis) uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. Elsevier 2000;355:1064-9
3. Rothwell PM. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176-86.
4. Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. 1st ed. Addison-Wesley, 1977.
5. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78-84.
6. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117.
7. Sun X, Ioannidis JPA, Agoritsas T, Alba AC, Guyatt G. How to use a subgroup analysis. JAMA 2014;311:405.
8. Brookes ST, Whitely E, Egger M, Smith GD, Mulheran PA, Peters TJ. Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:229-36.
9. Weiss CO, Varadhan R, Puhan MA, et al. Multimorbidity and evidence generation. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29:653-60.
10. Kahnemann D. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013.
11. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JPA, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: A proposal. Trials 2010;11:85.
12. Sox HC. Probability theory in the use of diagnostic tests. An introduction to critical study of the literature. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:60-6.
13. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2:e124.
14. Chopra V, Hayward RA. Why P is not perfect. Am J Med 2012;125:e1-e2.
15. Barnett H, Taylor D, Eliasziw M, et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1415-25.
16. Lees KR, Bluhmki E, Kummer von R, et al. Time to treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: An updated pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. Lancet 2010;375:1695-703.
17. De Luca G, Suryapranata H, Ottervanger JP, Antman EM. Time delay to treatment and mortality in primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: every minute of delay counts. Circulation 2004;109:1223-5.
18. Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al. Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2000;283:2941-7.
19. Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-56.
20. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335:217-25.
21. Daemen J, Boersma E, Flather M, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis with 5-year patient-level data from the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS trials. Circulation 2008;118:1146-54.
22. Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: A collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet 2009;373:1190-7.
23. Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients: 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:432-40.